WSP03024

• File Number: 8230.100.10
• Description: Colorado River Basin Colorado River Litigation - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 2/22/1982
• Author: Elbert P Tuttle
• Title: In the Supreme Court of the US - October Term 1981 - Report - Special Master Elbert P Tuttle
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

003313

I also agree with the State Parties that adjustments in
tribal water rights should be considered now rather
than await piecemeal litigation, so that some stability
and predictability in the allocation of water rights can
be reached.'"
Subject, therefore, to a proviso which would reduce
the allocations which I eventually recommend on ac-
count of the enlarged recognized boundaries on the ba.
sis of any valid court decisions withdrawing any lands
from the Reservations as now defined, I shall accept
the boundary changes set forth in the motion by the
United States filed on December 22, 1978, as having
been finally determined within the meaning of the
Court's 1964 Decree and Supplemental 1979. Decree.

C. Miscellaneous Boundary and Related Problems

1.' Fort Mojaue Reseruation Boundaries

(a) United States Claims

The United States claims for water rights on the
Fort Mojave Reservation are met by the State Parties
with the challenge that the United States has not
demonstrated that substantial relevant acreage is
within the Reservation boundaries. The State Par-
ties".' engineer testified that several isolated parcels
were neither in the boundaries recognized in the ear-
lier proceeding'.. nor my order of August 28, 1979110
and thus the United States had no basis for drawing

the boundaries as depicted on the present exhibits. JJI
The United States counters with the testimony of
their expert who stated that he took the boundaries
for his maps as given by the BIA.lI'
This state of the record does not present a suffi-
cient basis for an award of water rights"ivith respect to
these disputed parcels. The United States has simply
presented evidence that the Interior Department has
not yet finally resolved these boundaries because the
exhibits tendered by the United States in the earlier
proceedings conflict with those presently tendvred. No
satisfactory explanation is offered for this discrepancy.
The Court found that the prior Master's attempt at
the resolution of such a conflict was "unnecessary" and
I see no reason to follow a once disapproved course.
The United States claims may be discussed in two
parts.

(i) Intermediate Tract

The first dispute centers on what is known as the
Intermediate Tract of the Fort Mojave Reservation. It
lies between the northerly portion of the Reservation
known as the Old Post Reserve, which is almost a
square figure, and the central portion known as the
Hay and Wood Reserve, which is an irregularly-shaped
rectangle. These three tracts, which were originally
part of the old military reserve created in 1870, be.
came an Indian Reservation in 1890 by executive or-
der.1II The Intermediate Tract lies:

107. See Responss of ths Stete Parti.. to Motion of the United
Stet.ee for Modification of Decree 20-25 (Feb. 1979).
108. Stete Partie.' Post-Trial Opening Brief 2:U.2S (May 1981).
109. See generally Pr. U.S. Exhe. 1317, 1318.
no. See generally Special Master'. Memorandum and Report on
Preliminary Issue. (August 28, 1979).

111. See Tr. 5255 et. .eq.; S.P. Ezh. 149.
112. Tr. 679-81.
113. Executive Order of March 30, 1870, GenereJ Order No. 19 of the
Wu Department of August ", 1870; Executive Order of September 19,
1890. See 2 ExECUTMI ORDBR8 Ria.ATlNO TO hmWl ftBsBaVATIONS: FaOIl

76

77